Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: reveal-gated privacy rules (own notes only before reveal, authors only on named notes, vote totals only once revealed), workspace tier requirement, and differing content for health checks vs classic boards.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It leads with the core action and then enumerates the return shape, which is justified because there is no output schema. The single dense paragraph is heavy and could be broken up, but nearly every clause carries information the agent cannot get from structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the returned structure (setup, stages, columns, topics, tallies, votes, proposals, actions, summary) and the privacy conditions under which portions are visible. For a 1-parameter read tool, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself noting the uid comes from list_retrospectives. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a retrospective') and further disambiguates the two shapes it may return (new-model retrospective/health check vs classic board). It does not explicitly name a sibling like list_retrospectives, but the schema's parameter description ties it to that tool, so the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a real prerequisite ('Requires a Pro or trial workspace') and explains the conditional context that selects which variant you get (new-model vs classic board), plus when privacy gating applies. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with list_retrospectives or create_retrospective, so it is context-rich but not a full when/when-not routing statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.